[Lift Off 7]

Ive been always a LCD fan until i when to best buy the other day and saw the panasonic 65" on display and it totally blow me away, word cannot describe how crisp the picture is, although i havn't't been kept up to date in the electronic department in years and haven't seem much variety of different tv models, this is definitely the best ive seem.


one question:


ive always thought LCD are superior to Plasmas? Plz enlighten me.

 

[Fanaticalism]

Superior in which way? Better whites and brighter image? Yes.

Plug and play? Yes.

Better blacks? Generally, no.

Better motion resolution? Generally, no. Unless you get a set with a 120hz, but these create an unatural looking image and can introduce artifacting. Although it does look cool.

Off axis viewing? Pretty good on some panels, better than a plasma? no.

Better with glare? On most yes, but the only panels that can equal, or be comparable to a higher end plasma, have a highly reflective screen.


As for Panasonics 65" panel, it is a very good set, but not worth the price tag IMO. Considering you have to dish out an additional $999.99 for the stand. I'd rather sacrifice the 5" and get a Pro151 if I were you.

 

[Lift Off 7]

well..plasmas have lower resolutions than lcd, burn in, consumes more electricity ,lcds have longer life span, 1.33 ratio reso like 1024x768 which turns me off, etc..thats why i choose my flat panel LCD over it.im in the market of getting a new tv again, so after seeing the panasonic plasma, i might give plasma a shot this time, but still not totally convince yet.

 

[Fanaticalism]

Hmm...loads of misinformation there. I take it the last time you saw a plasma was 2 years ago? They are 1080p now.

 

[Hersheytx]

I take it this was the 750?

I am waiting to see the 850.

 

[Reizah]



Quote:
Originally Posted by Lift Off 7 /forum/post/14258321


well..plasmas have lower resolutions than lcd, burn in, consumes more electricity ,lcds have longer life span, 1.33 ratio reso like 1024x768 which turns me off, etc..thats why i choose my flat panel LCD over it.im in the market of getting a new tv again, so after seeing the panasonic plasma, i might give plasma a shot this time, but still not totally convince yet.

the 2008 panasonic plasma's have 100,000 hours lifetime and are now available in full HD 1080p (1920 x 1080) at an affordable price when compared to lcd tv's imo..

Panasonic's Official Website

Panasonic's Official Website - Viera Plasma Facts

 

[kyler13]



Quote:
Originally Posted by Lift Off 7 /forum/post/14258321


well..plasmas have lower resolutions than lcd, burn in, consumes more electricity ,lcds have longer life span, 1.33 ratio reso like 1024x768 which turns me off, etc..thats why i choose my flat panel LCD over it.im in the market of getting a new tv again, so after seeing the panasonic plasma, i might give plasma a shot this time, but still not totally convince yet.

Yikes. Time to catch up to 2008. About the only thing there that's correct in that statement is "consumes more electricity" which really amounts to tens of dollars more per year all said and done.

 

[stepyourgameup]

If you watch sports, LCD's have terrible motion blur which is not fixed by the 120hz thing no matter what any salesman says. This will keep me from buying an LCD until they get it fixed. Also, screen uniformity on an LCD is not very good. In case you didn't know, screen uniformity is how well the picture looks no matter where on the screen you are looking. Sometimes the picture looks good in the center of the panel but not as good around the edges. Moreover, off angle viewing is much better on a plasma than LCD. The only department that LCD is better than a plasma is in a brightly lit room since the brightness is usually higher on an LCD than a plasma so if your tv is in your living room upstairs and there are alot of windows then go with the LCD. Otherwise, LCD cannot match the plasma overall.

 

[moematthews]



Quote:
Originally Posted by kyler13 /forum/post/14258632


Yikes. Time to catch up to 2008. About the only thing there that's correct in that statement is "consumes more electricity" which really amounts to tens of dollars more per year all said and done.

No kidding. Everything in Lift Off 7's post is completely wrong. The original poster was probably so impressed because plasma produces a better picture and that would be significantly reinforced at the 65" screen size.

 

[Sanlanman]

I really wish liftoff7 could have confirmed the model number. Its likely that he saw last years model, the 700 or 750 series as this years models the 800 and 850 series aren't even supposed to be available until August/September per Panasonic's release information. And the 800 and 850s are supposed to be even better if the spec upgrades are any indication.

 

[TomGreen321]



Quote:
Originally Posted by stepyourgameup /forum/post/14259549


If you watch sports, LCD's have terrible motion blur which is not fixed by the 120hz thing no matter what any salesman says. This will keep me from buying an LCD until they get it fixed. Also, screen uniformity on an LCD is not very good. In case you didn't know, screen uniformity is how well the picture looks no matter where on the screen you are looking. Sometimes the picture looks good in the center of the panel but not as good around the edges. Moreover, off angle viewing is much better on a plasma than LCD. The only department that LCD is better than a plasma is in a brightly lit room since the brightness is usually higher on an LCD than a plasma so if your tv is in your living room upstairs and there are alot of windows then go with the LCD. Otherwise, LCD cannot match the plasma overall.

Plasma's have motion problems at times as well, and it's true Plasma has MUCH better viewing angles, there is a reflection on the glass that can give the impression of double vision.


Unlike 3 years ago, you really can't go wrong on any of the TV techs out now. They all have their ups and downs.

 

[Techniwizard]

This is a debate seen here many times.


Over a given time period, Plasma does not draw more power than LCD.


LCDs draw the same current whether light or dark.

Plasma only draws rated current at full white and highly bright inputs.

Plasma draws little current at black level.

LCDs increase current draw as they age.


Sometimes you need to think beyond the spec sheets, numbers can be misleading.


TW

 

[chrisherbert]



Quote:
Originally Posted by Techniwizard /forum/post/14260215


This is a debate seen here many times.


Over a given time period, Plasma does not draw more power than LCD.


LCDs draw the same current whether light or dark.

Plasma only draws rated current at full white and highly bright inputs.

Plasma draws little current at black level.

LCDs increase current draw as they age.


Sometimes you need to think beyond the spec sheets, numbers can be misleading.


TW

I'm not sure this is true. While plasma power draw does depend on how much bright stuff is on the screen, they still use more power than LCDs overall. The common number is about 25% more. Look at the cnet reviews -- they give average power use figures that should be relatively useful.


I've also never heard that LCD power useage goes up as the display ages. Why would that be?

 

[djnsmith7]

I've never been impressed with this display. With a contrast ratio of 5000:1, it's hard to be impressed. Add to that, the colors always look washed out to me. Then of course, I see it's ridiculous price tag, & all that consumes about 30 seconds of my time before moving to the next display.

 

[creemail]



Quote:
Originally Posted by djnsmith7 /forum/post/14261003


I've never been impressed with this display. With a contrast ratio of 5000:1, it's hard to be impressed. Add to that, the colors always look washed out to me. Then of course, I see it's ridiculous price tag, & all that consumes about 30 seconds of my time before moving to the next display.

The 65PZ850U should be much better in terms of picture quality and brightness...


Chris

 

[AlexInvision]



Quote:
Originally Posted by creemail /forum/post/14262346


The 65PZ850U should be much better in terms of picture quality and brightness...


Chris

But will it ever be released, this 850 series is taking for ever for the larger sizes.

 

[gamelover360]



Quote:
Originally Posted by Lift Off 7 /forum/post/14258321


well..plasmas have lower resolutions than lcd, burn in, consumes more electricity ,lcds have longer life span, 1.33 ratio reso like 1024x768 which turns me off, etc..thats why i choose my flat panel LCD over it.im in the market of getting a new tv again, so after seeing the panasonic plasma, i might give plasma a shot this time, but still not totally convince yet.

Use the search function and do some research.....and get your facts straight. This isn't the gamespot forum.

 

[AlexInvision]



Quote:
Originally Posted by Lift Off 7 /forum/post/14258321


well..plasmas have lower resolutions than lcd, burn in, consumes more electricity ,lcds have longer life span, 1.33 ratio reso like 1024x768 which turns me off, etc..thats why i choose my flat panel LCD over it.im in the market of getting a new tv again, so after seeing the panasonic plasma, i might give plasma a shot this time, but still not totally convince yet.

Do some research and you will see that most of that is wrong information.

 

[creemail]



Quote:
Originally Posted by AlexInvision /forum/post/14262367


But will it ever be released, this 850 series is taking for ever for the larger sizes.

I agree. I am not sure on what Panasonic's strategy is to release these displays later this year...

Chris

 

[AlexInvision]



Quote:
Originally Posted by creemail /forum/post/14262658


I agree. I am not sure on what Panasonic's strategy is to release these displays later this year...

Chris

I hope there startegy is a good one because I think alot of people are getting tired of waiting.